search_notes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that matching is case-insensitive and applies to both filename and content, but it does not disclose whether matching is partial, tokenized, or exact, nor does it mention result ordering, limits, or empty-result behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with the core action and scope front-loaded, followed by the case-insensitivity detail. Every word contributes meaning and there is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, an output schema exists, and no nested objects are involved. The description covers the essential purpose and query semantics; however, it could be slightly more complete by explicitly addressing edge-case behavior or when to use this versus sibling tools, though those gaps are relatively minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'query' parameter. It does so by explaining that the query drives a case-insensitive search across filename and content, which adds real meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('notes'), and narrows scope to 'filename and content' with a case-insensitive query. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools list_notes and read_note, which are listing and retrieval operations rather than search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Search notes by filename and content' gives clear context that this tool is for query-based discovery, not for listing or direct reading. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over list_notes or read_note, nor does it mention exclusions such as full-text vs substring matching.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.